Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

24567…201

Comments

  • #52
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    Daith wrote: »
    You need the read it as one I'm afraid. It's in the article about abortion.
    and, as far as practicable, by its laws
    That's it in black and white, the admission that they will use their own laws within Ireland to uphold the constitution.


  • #53
    Daith
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,057 ✭✭✭Daith


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    That's it in black and white, the admission that they will use their own laws within Ireland to uphold the constitution.

    Selective quoting here about providing information which has nothing to do with the amendment to travel.


  • #54
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    Daith wrote: »
    It's in the article about abortion!

    It doesn't give them the right to travel for a skiing trip!
    It doesn't "give the right to travel" for anything specific at all!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    It says the right isn't limited by the laws as applied in Ireland. It can't really be clearer.


  • #55
    Daith
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,057 ✭✭✭Daith


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    It doesn't "give the right to travel" for anything specific at all!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    It's the the article about abortion. Not sure how else I can make this clearer.
    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    It says the right isn't limited by the laws as applied in Ireland. It can't really be clearer.

    That's a different amendment about providing information. You're confusing them.


  • #56
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    Daith wrote: »
    Selective quoting here about providing information which has nothing to do with the amendment to travel.
    Extreme re-interpretation here, when the bill is specifically stating the state's laws cannot interfere with travel here, with no specific mention (unless it's in invisible ink) of travel for any reason.


  • #57
    Daith
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,057 ✭✭✭Daith


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    Extreme re-interpretation here, when the bill is specifically stating the state's laws cannot interfere with travel here, with no specific mention (unless it's in invisible ink) of travel for any reason.

    No that's a separate amendment about seeking information.

    It states the prohibition on abortion doesn't prevent the women from travelling or seeking information about abortions.

    The fact you're continuing to misread it knowing full well it's the reason we have women travelling daily to have abortions astounds me


  • #58
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    Daith wrote: »
    It's the the article about abortion. Not sure how else I can make this clearer.
    It is in the bill but it does not mention "travel for abortion" at all no matter how much you'd like it to.


  • #59
    Daith
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,057 ✭✭✭Daith


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    It is in the bill but it does not mention "travel for abortion" at all no matter how much you'd like it to.

    It doesn't have to. It's in the article about...ABORTION


  • #60
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    Daith wrote: »
    No that's a separate amendment about seeking information.
    Yes, the 14th. Pretty much the same thing though, no ban on information on activity that is legal elsewhere. Is there any other legal activity in the world that we are banned from having access to information about? And what other things that are legal elsewhere in the world do we prosecute for here?


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    Daith wrote: »
    It doesn't have to. It's in the article about...ABORTION
    But that line does not mention ABORTION. It doesn't have to. It is quite trivial to say "travel is not restricted" as an absolute.


  • #62
    Kyng Curved Harmonica
    Posts: 0 ✭✭✭✭ Kyng Curved Harmonica


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    It doesn't actually.
    This does not say anything about "for an abortion" no matter how much you'd like it to.

    Care to explain what the 13th Amendment sets out to do in your view?


  • #63
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    Daith wrote: »
    The fact you're continuing to misread it knowing full well it's the reason we have women travelling daily to have abortions astounds me
    The fact you are adding extra words to a constitutional amendment in your own head astounds me likewise.


  • #64
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Care to explain what the 13th Amendment sets out to do in your view?
    Uphold the Irish constitution within our borders.
    State Irish laws only apply within Ireland.

    I get you think this bill is specifically allowing travel for abortion, but that's not what it says. It says travel is not restricted by Irish law. (unless you add extra wording in your imagination)


  • #65
    alaimacerc
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,224 ✭✭✭alaimacerc


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    It doesn't actually.
    This does not say anything about "for an abortion" no matter how much you'd like it to.
    "This subsection shall not limit freedom to travel [...]". (Emph added. But seemingly required.) Most of us haven't forgotten which subsection it is we're talking about. "No matter how much you'd like us to," as it were.

    Y'know, the one on, well, abortion.


  • #66
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    alaimacerc wrote: »
    "This subsection shall not limit freedom to travel [...]". (Emph added. But seemingly required.) Most of us haven't forgotten which subsection it is we're talking about. "No matter how much you'd like us to," as it were.

    Y'know, the one on, well, abortion.
    See above. It is not complicated to say "here's law X, law X does not trump law Y" without specifying anything further. Which is what they did.


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    Daith
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,057 ✭✭✭Daith


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    But that line does not mention ABORTION. It doesn't have to. It is quite trivial to say "travel is not restricted" as an absolute.

    It DOESNT HAVE TO..

    Do you honestly think people voting to insert this amendment after the 8th amendment didn't think this was about right to travel to access abortion services?

    The 8th amendment doesn't mention the word abortion either but we know what it's there for don't we?


  • #68
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    Daith wrote: »
    It DOESNT HAVE TO..
    IT DOES HAVE TO if you're pretending it's specifically allowing travel for abortion. The words just aren't there.
    It very specifically says Rule 1, this does not infringe on trump rule Rule 2.


  • #69
    alaimacerc
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,224 ✭✭✭alaimacerc


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    Uphold the Irish constitution within our borders.
    You've saying the Irish constitution had to be modified to say it was to be upheld in Ireland? This is to say that it's saying nothing.
    State Irish laws only apply within Ireland.
    And this is flat-out wrong. First, it's not within a bull roar of the actual wording. And secondly, it's contradicted by actual universal jurisdiction asserted in some areas.
    I get you think this bill is specifically allowing travel for abortion, but that's not what it says. It says travel is not restricted by Irish law. (unless you add extra wording in your imagination)
    No, it's saying that travel is not restricted by the anti-abortion clause. It can be -- and is -- restricted otherwise.

    Unless your imagination is allowing you to ignore words that are very plainly there...


  • #70
    Daith
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,057 ✭✭✭Daith


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    IT DOES HAVE TO if you're pretending it's specifically allowing travel for abortion. The words just aren't there.
    It very specifically says Rule 1, this does not infringe on trump rule Rule 2.

    The word abortion doesn't appear anywhere!


  • #71
    Kyng Curved Harmonica
    Posts: 0 ✭✭✭✭ Kyng Curved Harmonica


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    Uphold the Irish constitution within our borders.
    State Irish laws only apply within Ireland.

    I get you think this bill is specifically allowing travel for abortion, but that's not what it says. It says travel is not restricted by Irish law. (unless you add extra wording in your imagination)

    That's a strange enough reading of it. Any idea why they used the terms "this subsection" instead of just writing what you have?
    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    See above. It is not complicated to say "here's law X, law X does not trump law Y" without specifying anything further. Which is what they did.

    Again, note the term "this subsection".


  • Advertisement
  • #72
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    Daith wrote: »
    It DOESNT HAVE TO..

    Do you honestly think people voting to insert this amendment after the 8th amendment didn't think this was about right to travel to access abortion services?

    The 8th amendment doesn't mention the word abortion either but we know what it's there for don't we?
    IT DOESN'T HAVE TO.
    Yet again, it just presents new part X and says this does not affect existing stuff Y. IT DOES NOT SAY "existing stuff Y specifically when it comes to part X". It just says existing stuff Y still takes precedent.


  • #73
    Daith
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,057 ✭✭✭Daith


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    IT DOESN'T HAVE TO.
    Yet again, it just presents new part X and says this does not affect existing stuff Y. IT DOES NOT SAY "existing stuff Y specifically when it comes to part X". It just says existing stuff Y still takes precedent.

    Yes the prohibition on abortion (which again doesn't appear anywhere) doesn't effect the women's right to travel.


  • #74
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    alaimacerc wrote: »
    No, it's saying that travel is not restricted by the anti-abortion clause. It can be -- and is -- restricted otherwise.

    Unless your imagination is allowing you to ignore words that are very plainly there...
    How is saying that travel is not restricted by this clause explicitly stating that Irish law is "wrong" or contradictoty within Ireland?


  • #75
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    Daith wrote: »
    Yes the prohibition on abortion (which again doesn't appear anywhere) doesn't effect the women's right to travel.
    And how is this contradictory to Irish law being applied within Ireland?


  • #76
    Daith
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,057 ✭✭✭Daith


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    How is saying that travel is not restricted by this clause explicitly stating that Irish law is "wrong" or contradictoty within Ireland?

    It allows women to travel and avail of abortion services.

    Without the 13th amendment a woman could be stopped from travelling to have an abortion if it was known this was the reason.
    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    And how is this contradictory to Irish law being applied within Ireland?

    It gives the rights of the unborn less rights if a women is travelling to avail of abortion services. Seems pretty contradictory.


  • #77
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    Daith wrote: »
    It allows women to travel and avail of abortion services.

    Without the 13th amendment a woman could be stopped from travelling to have an abortion if it was known.
    But you still haven't stated how this is contradictory to Irish law applying within Ireland. Another try perhaps?


  • #78
    Daith
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,057 ✭✭✭Daith


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    But you still haven't stated how this is contradictory to Irish law applying within Ireland. Another try perhaps?

    Does the fetus have less rights now that the mother is in the UK?

    It gives women a constitutional right to travel with the full knowledge they are availing of services which are illegal in Ireland.


  • #79
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,820 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Absolam wrote: »
    Nevertheless, as I said, I think killing someone is worse than raping someone.

    So doctors who perform abortions are worse than rapists?


  • #80
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    Daith wrote: »
    It gives the rights of the unborn less rights if a women is travelling to avail of abortion services. Seems pretty contradictory.
    No it doesn't. It permits travel to countries where the laws can be anything you like and says this cannot be restricted. There is no change in the status of the unborn when in Ireland.


  • #81
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    Daith wrote: »
    Does the fetus have less rights now that the mother is in the UK?

    It gives women a constitutional right to travel with the full knowledge they are availing of services which are illegal in Ireland.
    And? We don't have a list of every law in every country on earth somewhere and check it every time somebody goes abroad. No difference here.


  • Advertisement
  • #82
    Daith
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,057 ✭✭✭Daith


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    There is no change in the status of the unborn when in Ireland.

    There certainly is when the woman returns from the UK though.
    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    And? We don't have a list of every law in every country on earth somewhere and check it every time somebody goes abroad. No difference here.

    Well except the right to travel is specifically under our laws about abortion.....


  • #83
    alaimacerc
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,224 ✭✭✭alaimacerc


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    But you still haven't stated how this is contradictory to Irish law applying within Ireland. Another try perhaps?

    AFAIR "contradictory" was your choice of wording. I'm personally happier to say it's muddled, hypocritical, and shamelessly expedient.

    But it seems you've conceded the "right to travel to have an abortion" point, albeit after much wholly unnecessary protestation.


  • #84
    Daith
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,057 ✭✭✭Daith


    alaimacerc wrote: »
    AFAIR "contradictory" was your choice of wording. I'm personally happier to say it's muddled, hypocritical, and shamelessly expedient.

    Indeed. It's hypocritical not contradictory. Which I think I used anyway


  • #85
    Cabaal
    Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 28,510 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cabaal


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    No it doesn't. It permits travel to countries where the laws can be anything you like and says this cannot be restricted. There is no change in the status of the unborn when in Ireland.

    I think you'll find there has been a change,
    Women travels to UK, no "unborn" returns to Ireland.

    So "murder" is ok as long as we export it eh?
    :rolleyes:


  • #86
    alaimacerc
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,224 ✭✭✭alaimacerc


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    No it doesn't. It permits travel to countries where the laws can be anything you like and says this cannot be restricted.

    Oh dear, we seem to be slipping again. It does not provide any general such permission.

    Let me recap the effect of the particular clauses:
    40.3.3.1: No abortion.
    40.3.3.2: Notwithstanding the above, feel free to travel elsewhere to have an abortion.


  • #87
    Daith
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,057 ✭✭✭Daith


    alaimacerc wrote: »
    Oh dear, we seem to be slipping again. It does not provide any general such permission.

    Let me recap the effect of the particular clauses:
    40.3.3.1: No abortion.
    40.3.3.2: Notwithstanding the above, feel free to travel elsewhere to have an abortion.

    The rights of the unborn is equal to the rights of the mother

    Notwithstanding the above this does stop the mother travelling to another country where the rights of the unborn are not equal.

    Nothing odd here...


  • #88
    Absolam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    alaimacerc wrote: »
    You must not watch enough courtroom dramas. Hostile witness, notable exception to the "leading question" rule.
    Amusing, but I don't Cabaal was asking if they want to lobby for laws, he was telling them they should, which goes a little further than leading the witness...
    alaimacerc wrote: »
    Good to know we're not leavening our political cynicism with any consideration of possible conscience, logic, or consistency on the part of our elected representatives. Avoids any risk of disappointment.
    Well with any luck the conscience of our elected representatives will lead them to represent the views of those who elect them. Since logically, their future as politicians should depend on their electorate. If their electorate is consistent, I suppose.


  • #89
    Kyng Curved Harmonica
    Posts: 0 ✭✭✭✭ Kyng Curved Harmonica


    MrPudding wrote: »
    ...
    Which would you do?

    MrP

    I would not answer the question your honour, as it would show that I don't at heart believe what I say I do. And that the ideal that I defend fails under scrutiny.


  • #90
    alaimacerc
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,224 ✭✭✭alaimacerc


    Daith wrote: »
    Notwithstanding the above this does stop the mother travelling to another country where the rights of the unborn are not equal.
    Presumably it wouldn't have been otherwise read as a prohibition on merely being in a country without such a "right", regardless of intent or action.

    Unless of course one buys into the "what people thought they were voting for" conspiracy theories being trotted out on Vinny B last night...


  • Advertisement
  • #91
    Daith
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,057 ✭✭✭Daith


    Almost 1,500 women travelled from Ireland to the Netherlands over a seven year-period to have abortions.

    http://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/hundreds-of-irish-women-travel-to-netherlands-for-abortions-1.2352862


  • #92
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    alaimacerc wrote: »
    But it seems you've conceded the "right to travel to have an abortion" point, albeit after much wholly unnecessary protestation.
    I didn't actually. You've put something in quotes which doesn't exist in the amendment. This is of course an eventuality of the wording, but it isn't actually what the wording states, or indeed has to.


  • #93
    Absolam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    So doctors who perform abortions are worse than rapists?
    I woudn't know; I think I'd like to know a little more about the people before I leap to any judgements about them.
    I'd agree that a person who kills another person does a worse thing than a person who rapes another person though; which, to forestall the leap, does not mean that raping a person is not a bad thing.


  • #94
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    Cabaal wrote: »
    I think you'll find there has been a change,
    Women travels to UK, no "unborn" returns to Ireland.

    So "murder" is ok as long as we export it eh?
    :rolleyes:
    So, as I said, no change of status of the unborn within Ireland? But if you say something completely different I guess you are right. Well done on that.


  • #95
    alaimacerc
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,224 ✭✭✭alaimacerc


    Absolam wrote: »
    Amusing, but I don't Cabaal was asking if they want to lobby for laws, he was telling them they should, which goes a little further than leading the witness...
    No, exact same prohibition/exception. "I put it to you that..."
    Well with any luck the conscience of our elected representatives will lead them to represent the views of those who elect them.
    That's a little different from your first formulation, however, which was much more suggestive of "not while they can get away with doing otherwise".

    Let's say 70% of the population wants reform or abolition of the 8th. (Which would be about the case, if opinion-polling is accurate in the first place, and secondly that people are even a little bit consistent about this, if they wish for a dispensation inconsistent with the present reading of the 8th.) But 70% of the electorate aren't going to be voting on just that. They'll be voting on keeping out the Shinners/the nice budget FG just gave me/the even better budget FF promised me/robust capitalism and grand-sounding "political reform", but actually meaning it this time, not like those spoofers that promised that exact thing last time/whatever you're having yourself.


  • #96
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    Daith wrote: »
    The rights of the unborn is equal to the rights of the mother

    Notwithstanding the above this does stop the mother travelling to another country where the rights of the unborn are not equal.

    Nothing odd here...
    But why is that contradictory? "Our laws don't apply there" seems pretty easy to grasp?


  • Advertisement
  • #97
    alaimacerc
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,224 ✭✭✭alaimacerc


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    I didn't actually. You've put something in quotes which doesn't exist in the amendment. This is of course an eventuality of the wording, but it isn't actually what the wording states, or indeed has to.

    But no-one is claiming 40.3.3.2 says that in those words, any more than anyone says that 40.3.3.1 is so indelicate and tactless as to explicitly say "no abortions". That's the clear effect and expressed intent all the same. In both cases.


  • #98
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    alaimacerc wrote: »
    Let's say 70% of the population wants reform or abolition of the 8th. (Which would be about the case, if opinion-polling is accurate in the first place, and secondly that people are even a little bit consistent about this, if they wish for a dispensation inconsistent with the present reading of the 8th.)
    Well, reform and abolition are rather different things here. Adding rape/health etc. to the list of allowed abortions only would shut out on demand for a good 30 years more.


  • #99
    alaimacerc
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,224 ✭✭✭alaimacerc


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    "Our laws don't apply there" seems pretty easy to grasp?

    And wrong. As I already pointed out.

    Here, have a link.


  • #100
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    alaimacerc wrote: »
    But no-one is claiming 40.3.3.2 says that in those words, any more than anyone says that 40.3.3.1 is so indelicate and tactless as to explicitly say "no abortions". That's the clear effect and expressed intent all the same. In both cases.
    As it is an inevitable eventuality, there was no need to specifically state it, which they did not do.
    Now, how does this change the status of the unborn within the state where Irish law applies? It doesn't.


  • #101
    Absolam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    alaimacerc wrote: »
    No, exact same prohibition/exception. "I put it to you that..."
    I put it to you that you should to this, since you're showing no sign you will? Objection your honour! Counsel is testifying.
    alaimacerc wrote: »
    That's a little different from your first formulation, however, which was much more suggestive of "not while they can get away with doing otherwise".
    Well, I was trying to include your own rather extravagant wording, though my first formulation was intended to be suggestive of the notion that politicians will do what it takes to continue being politicians rather than your own notion.
    But in short; if enough people demonstrate to their TDs that they want a referendum and they won't re-elect them unless they support the notion, Tds will pay attention. If their electorate is more interested in demonstrating they're interested in keeping out the Shinners/the nice budget FG just gave me/the even better budget FF promised me/robust capitalism and grand-sounding "political reform", but actually meaning it this time, not like those spoofers that promised that exact thing last time/whatever you're having yourself, they'll pay attention to that. That's politics for you....


  • Advertisement
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement